i had no idea that we could tell the carbon dioxide levels in the air 800,000 years ago let alone determine the earth is that old from ice that could have been formed in such varying circumstances as to make the level of carbon dioxide irrelevant to the actual levels in the air...

thanks for the secret....
i said nothing about any constant spewing from keyboards...
all i was saying is that i think the article is incorrect, based on assumptions that 'science' doesn't make, and basing our actions off of such information (ie, investing billions of dollars a year into 'saving' an environment that isn't anywhere near dying) would be counterproductive...

if you buy into the type of stuff that article is talking about: then ok, your opinion is just as valid as mine...

all i was saying is that i think the article is incorrect, based on assumptions that 'science' doesn't make

Click to expand...

And you're most likely wrong. Not to say this automatically spells doom - who knows what processes could react to such a huge fluctuation of CO2, maybe its not so bad - but it doesn't look good.

And how does science not make these assumptions? What assumptions are these, by your standard, non-scientific people making? Do you not believe we can draw so much information from ice? Is that the problem for you?

"...800,000 years ago, let alone determine the earth is that old"
Now let's examine this little diddy here. So you must be presuming that perhaps the earth isn't as old as many people have said. Therefore, you might believe there is another theory out there that better explains the origins of the earth -> ergo, sum...cut the bullshit, you dont believe in a lot of sciences, but the bible is what you may trust. Which leads me to think you know little of what science is and does.

Don't try to tell me this is just a warming period either. If you're going to ignore science one minute, and then call it back for your defense, you've get little ground to stand on.

And how does science not make these assumptions? What assumptions are these, by your standard, non-scientific people making? Do you not believe we can draw so much information from ice? Is that the problem for you?

Click to expand...

eh... you completely missed the point... Science Doesn't Make Any Assumptions... go read that secret you posted... science is about knowing and ordering the physical universe... science should never be based on assumptions...

why do i not believe we can draw that much information from those ice samples? 1. we don't know how those samples were made (as in, what conditions.) 2. we don't know if anything in those samples has changed in the last "800,000" years...

Click to expand...

3. another reason i don't agree with that article... it tells of massive amounts of more carbon dioxide which is supposed to mean lower temperatures in the past... but did you notice that if carbon dioxide and lower temperatures actually correlate in the way that the article suggest that it means that the temperature/environment 800,000 years ago was much Colder than now - to the point that it would actually be worse for living organisms than the current temperature...

or, if any of the above reasons do not satisfy, how bout this... that ice was made in the ICE AGE... yes, that does mean more carbon dioxide and lower temps... but doesn't even begin to show some sort of bad temperature progressoin....

"...800,000 years ago, let alone determine the earth is that old"
Now let's examine this little diddy here. So you must be presuming that perhaps the earth isn't as old as many people have said. Therefore, you might believe there is another theory out there that better explains the origins of the earth -> ergo, sum...cut the bullshit, you dont believe in a lot of sciences, but the bible is what you may trust. Which leads me to think you know little of what science is and does.

Click to expand...

this is silly. what i said is that i did not presume the earth to be 800,000 years old. That doesn't mean that i presume is anything. That doesn't mean i presume its 4500 yrs or 4.5 billion years old. That doesn't mean I believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, or that i subscribe to any other theory. It just means, i don't necesarily agree with thier article.

Yes, its true, the northern hemisphere is 1.2345678 degrees warmer than it was 50 years ago and yes we do have hole in the ozone layer over antartica that may or may not have been there 100 years ago... but no "science" has shown that the earth has been progressively getting warmer for xxxxxxx years and that we are the cause.

worried? go plant a tree and never eat at mcdonald's again...
if not? live life as you always have...

2. we don't know if anything in those samples has changed in the last "800,000" years..

Click to expand...

No one so far has come up with a reason as to why that might be of any interest. There doesn't seem to be much of a way for the particulates and molecules buried hundreds of feet in ice to escape. And some of the materal has changed, its radioactive, and they are drawing data from that as well.

3. another reason i don't agree with that article... it tells of massive amounts of more carbon dioxide which is supposed to mean lower temperatures in the past... but did you notice that if carbon dioxide and lower temperatures actually correlate in the way that the article suggest that it means that the temperature/environment 800,000 years ago was much Colder than now - to the point that it would actually be worse for living organisms than the current temperature...

or, if any of the above reasons do not satisfy, how bout this... that ice was made in the ICE AGE... yes, that does mean more carbon dioxide and lower temps... but doesn't even begin to show some sort of bad temperature progressoin...

Click to expand...

What you state here doesn't point to a much colder climate in the past, it points to a higher temp in the future. No one would extrapolate the data as if today's levels of CO2 are normal, and draw conclusions that the past would be much colder than believed. But I'm not really sure what you're saying, maybe I'm not hearing you right in this part of your post. Part of the thing they're getting at is that there is a massive flux in CO2 levels, the earths temperature may not go up as fast as you'd think, but they're not really much to stop it from going up.

P.S. By "assumptions" I'm merely categorizing what analysis/interpretation of data they have come up with. A lone scientist's analysis or findings could be considered an assumption until others have validated it, but i use it in a broad sense. I was also emphasizing your criticism of their work, i don't believe they make assumptions.

i'm just saying that i think that in this article we dont' know enough about the ice and how it was formed/may have changed/when the ice was formed... to draw any conclusions about now or the future...

and the BBC puts out a lot of stuff that comes from the standpoint that would disagree with mine... so thats why the title showed my opinion of thier 'science'...